Talk:Saint Joseph/Archive 2

The meaning of τεκτων (tekton)
The introduction says: 'It is common to refer to him as a "carpenter", although the modern English words "joiner" or "cabinet-maker" might fit the sense of the Greek better.' The footnote cites two places in the Gospels that presumably use the term τεκτων (I can't check the Greek text), but does not provide evidence that τεκτων really means "joiner" or "cabinet-maker". The German Wikipedia article on Joseph gives a wider meaning to the term, even including the meaning of "architect". (This may seem hair-splitting, but in the light of passages about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in three days, it may be very important.) --ChristopheS (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without a real citation, I don't think that sentence is worth keeping. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 08:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it, taking out the parts that aren't supported by anything. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you address the OP's concerns. I believe the issue is that tekton doesn't mean "carpenter" even if that is what the association is in common parlance. The German article says as much.-Andrew c [talk] 17:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More that it might mean a lot of things, including carpenter, but many others rather more skilled than "carpenter" implies in English. For example "stone-mason".  Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * John, your edit is an improvement, but I would still be more comfortable with a ref provided. I've heard that tekton means more than "carpenter" before, so I believe it, and I trust you and Andrew, but since most people do not know Greek script, much less Greek, a citation which discusses the nuances of "tekton" would be rather good. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well would someone provide a reference for that? The footnote that was there was really rather OR-ish, IMO. I by no means have a problem with a better translation of tekton. I just want it to be sourced properly. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with you. Regardless what we may have heard or think we remember, we really should just be following our sources. I'm about to go out for a bit, but I can browse through my personal library for a source later tonight, if we can't find one. -Andrew c [talk] 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try looking on JSTOR, I'm sure that among us we can find something. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've modified the text, informed by a couple refs from gscholar. I think they're representative of what I found. The salient bits of the top ten results were: “Joseph was a carpenter...We should probably not try to to specify too narrowly what the term 'carpenter' meant and think of it as designating an artisan with wood in general and not just a framer...The word tekton could also be applied to an artisan who worked in iron or stone.”; “Joseph and Jesus being artisans or construction workers”; “a tekton, a woodworker”; “tekton (construction worker, carpenter or wheelwright?)”; “carpenter (or tekton) occupation”. What does everyone think? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)That's fine. I changed iron to "metal"; I think what's meant is "non-precious metals" such as copper or brass as well as iron, although I see the ref actually says "iron". A goldsmith would probably not be so described. The word is the same root as "technology" and "technique", & means a skilled tradesman or worker of a "making" sort. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

John, seeing as how the ref says "iron", and not "metal", oughtn't we stick with what the ref really says? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Iron is a metal, so i don't see an actual contradiction. By from memories of other reading, I think the ref is taking a specific example of a metal, when the word was more general. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Marriage Laws
I added a 'fact' tag to the comment that Joseph and Mary weren't "really" married after their betrothal and therefore weren't allowed to begin sexual relations. In Jewish law (see Mishnah and /or Talmud tractate 'Kiddushin' -- I'll try to get some sources in here later on), "betrothal" is as much a marriage as needed and sexual relations may legally begin immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfhaugh (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Count Saint Germain is Saint Joseph
I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. This would mean theologically that Joseph is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit and that he is divine. ADM (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tablet of Joseph
There is a peculiar Bahai document called tablet of Joseph that mentions someone named Joseph, who is perhaps the same person as Saint Joseph. ADM (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
Tag added for the following original conclusion: Plus he has a Bentley
 * The clarification has been added that they were not yet living together,[14] from which follows that they had not yet conducted the wedding rite known as the "home taking", which is the legal ceremony that permits Jewish couples to begin conjugal relations.

The issue is the "from which it follows that..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.5.2 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sections blanked?
Why have whole sections been blanked? patsw (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research?
An anon editor drive-by added the original research template without explanation. Lacking any follow-up, I intend to remove it, if there is no discussion here. patsw (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed per above. patsw (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Move
There's been no discussion of a move (i.e. change to the name) of this article. There is no consensus to move the article.

To start the discussion, the most common name in English for the article's subject is "Saint Joseph". patsw (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The most common name in English for the article's subject is not "Saint Joseph".-Andrew c [talk] 03:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is? There's no need to be cryptic.  "Saint Joseph" has 8 million Google hits.  "Saint Joseph" has been the name of the article since 2002.  What's changed? Why wasn't this discussed prior to the move? patsw (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, it's been named like that since 17 September 2004, when I happened to move it from "Joseph the Betrothed". Regardless of the exact timing, the current name does indeed seem to be the most appropriate one. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? That old title does not show up in the page log.  The "Betrothed" title would be inaccurate in any case, since the sources indicate he married Mary. patsw (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sure because I remember doing it :) I guess these logs may have changed behaviour since. The log entry is there in the history for that title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In what alternate universe did Joseph not marry Mary, and thereby become Joseph the Betrothed and Mary become a single parent? In what AU is "Joseph the Betrothed" the most common name for the article subject?  patsw (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Which is why I moved the article *away* from that title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my comment was a bit pointy. You made an outlandishly bold claim with zero support. It very well may be The Truth, but still... it helps to bring sources to these sorts of discussions. That all :P Anyway, a bold, out of process move occurred, and has since been reverted. Per WP:BRD, those still supporting a page move should come and discuss it. There is also a formal move request page WP:RM (but discussions belong on this talk page). It doesn't seem like anyone has come to defend the move, so... -Andrew c [talk] 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't see it anywhere listed as a "formal move request page on WP:RM." If it is please point it out to me. Thanks. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your gripe. Are you upset I mentioned WP:RM in additional to clearly advocating for discussing the move here? I don't get it. -Andrew c [talk] 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a gripe. I just don't see a it listed on WP:RM. When I asked you to please point it out to me-- I ment only that. Please tell me where on the page it is... like what day is it under? If it is not listed we can list it but I want to read it if it is there.User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Salome
Is there any particular reason that Salome, who the page says may have been Joseph's first wife, links to the Salome who is a nemesis of John the baptist, was born after Jesus, and a daughter of Herodias. Even the disambiguation does not have the correct Salome. Wouldn;t it be better just to remove the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.118.193 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Patron Saint of Canada
I'm curious about the area that talks about St. Joseph being the Patron Saint of Canada. If I am reading it correctly, it's more referring to abstract, rather than the particular? I'm wondering because I've always understood St. Jean de Brebeuf to be the Patron Saint of Canada..? Dphilp75 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing text?
The section entitled "In the canonical Gospels" begins with "The next event related is when Joseph is told by the angel in another dream." [emphasis added] Since this doesn't follow the lead, which ends with a discussion of sainthood, I wonder if text was removed from the beginning of this section? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of vandalism on this article and sometimes it is hard to catch every deletion or addition. What do you or others suggest? --Morenooso (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Inheritance of the Throne of David
Some clarification would be welcome on the matter of whether or how the line of inheritance of the Throne of David passed through Joseph. If Joseph was the uncrowned King of the Jews this was presumably not known to King Herod or his agents, or he would have been killed, but clearly was known to the disciples who contributed the genealogy of Jesus to the Bible - so where and how and by whom was this traditional knowledge preserved? If, as the Orthodox Church maintains, Saint James the Just was the natural son of Joseph by his first marriage then why does the Throne of David pass from Joseph not to James but to an adopted son by his second marriage? What were the traditional Judaic laws of inheritance of such titles? If Joseph was the living heir to the throne why do the Magi honor his stepson as King of the Jews rather than him? [unsigned]
 * Try Genealogy of Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Genealogy of Jesus article doesn't actually answer these questions - or even mention the question of Joseph's status as King of the Jews. There has now been 2000 years of intense debate about these questions so some fairly well established official positions must have emerged within the various denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

historicity
Presumably our readers want to know whether Joseph really existed. I've found two notable viewpoints on the topic. I'd invite other editors to add other historical citations. I'd also like editors to stop deleting this cited, notable information. Leadwind (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is Fringe theories. The steps in the Disputed Content will now be followed. --Morenooso (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the definition of "fringe theory." "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Spong and the JS are each notable. I'm sorry if WP includes information that some editors don't like, but let's please follow the rules. Leadwind (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest this section belongs more properly in the Spong article. --Morenooso (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add this material to the Spong article. As for excluding it from this article, please cite a WP policy or guideline to back you up. This isn't about our personal opinions. It's about WP standards. Leadwind (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like another editor agreed with me. I will be the first to admit that with an article like this, King Arthur, and even Paul Revere, there will be some doubt about did they really exist, do this or that, or even can be credited for some of the accomplishments they are known for. You're better off using scholars, who don't have the criticisms of Soong. His stuff is better suited for his article. --Morenooso (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to the WP guideline that says authors of Spong's caliber should be excluded if they're controversial. Leadwind (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Spong's book fits this criterion: "To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication." It looks like, in black and white, Spong's hypothesis, while not mainstream, is "notable enough to appear in Wikipedia." Leadwind (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fringe theory 101 - even omitted altogether. --Morenooso (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because Soong has an article does not mean his work has the right to appear in other articles. That's a failed argument in WP:AFD using WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Morenooso (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Spong article - criticisms

 * Critical review of Jesus for the Non-Religious
 * Jesus for the Non-Religious (review) - Sydney Anglicans website
 * ‘Jesus For The Non-Religious’ Described As Gutting The Christian Faith
 * What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong? Laymen Rethink the Scholarship of John Shelby Spong
 * Review of Bishop Spong’s Jesus for the Non Religious:An Historical Approach by John Dickson (author) --Morenooso (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Spong must have a notable point of view if so many people are talking about his books. Sounds like someone worth including in WP. We shouldn't say that Spong is right, but we should let the reader know what Spong says. Meanwhile, if someone can find a contemporary historian who says that Joseph did exist, then let's cite them, too. I don't know whether Joseph existed, and it doesn't matter what I think anyway. It matters what the experts think. Leadwind (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable in that he is being debunked. It's pretty notable when the WP:LEAD contains, Spong's ideas have received strong criticism from some other theologians, notably the Archbishop of Canterbury who is Rowan Williams.--Morenooso (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the qualifier that Spong is a controversial theologian. Now if you think that Spong's negative press disqualifies him as a reliable source, please quote the WP policy that agrees with you. Leadwind (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Morenooso. IMO, one person's fringe theory does not merit its own section. There are fringe and conspiracy theories on almost anything; it does not mean it merits its own section on such articles. Flash 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
 * It doesn't matter what we personally think. What matters is WP policy. If this historicity material doesn't warrant inclusion, find the policy that says so. Leadwind (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:Fringe theories

If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.

The theory, which makes up most of the historicity section, is clearly undue weight. It is also misleading to say that scholars disagree when you only have one author as a source. Not only that, historicity in and of itself is not an important topic on pages such as this since historicity is assumed by the vast majority of scholars. Flash 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
 * This info is better suited in his article. --Morenooso (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Historicity is indeed relevant, if only to assure the reader that the vast majority of scholars consider Joseph to have been a historical figure. Just find a citation for that, and into the article it should go. As for Spong, he's not the only one to question Joseph's identity. The Jesus Seminar came away with a mixed report on Joseph, so the "one author" criterion fails. As for undue weight, the whole article seems to assume that Joseph was real, so a thin paragraph about the dissenting opinion is not undue weight. Spong is the only one that I've found to write at any length about Jesus' historicity. You're welcome to find your own historical sources, as well. I'd really like to see a citation for your assertion that nearly all scholars consider him historical. It's probably true, but WP is about reliable sources, not editors' opinions. Leadwind (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From your post on fringe theory: If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether - even omitted altogether. Consensus seems to be omitted althougher here. Try the Soong article. --Morenooso (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Historicity isn't even an important topic, which is why it has never been in the article. A fringe theory in an unimportant topic merits no mention in the article. Furthermore, just because guidelines do not forbid it from being included doesn't mean that it MUST be included. Flash 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

historicity of the infancy narratives
FTR, here's more historical information that's being excluded from the page.

===Historicity of the infancy narratives=== Modern historians question the accuracy of the genealogies and infancy narratives, in which Joseph plays an important part. Geza Vermes, an important representative of contemporary research into historical Jesus, describes Joseph's genealogies as artificial and the infancy narratives as legendary. E. P. Sanders, another major historical voice on the topic, concurs that both birth narratives can't be accurate and it's improbable that either one is. Scholars of the Jesus Seminar depict the infancy narratives as late additions to the Jesus tradition with little historical value. Scholars, however, overwhelmingly acknowledge that Jesus' had a father named Joseph.

Historical information belongs in an article about a historical figure. Leadwind (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe this same information could be presented in such a way that it's explicitly about Joseph (not just implicitly). Something like, "The most important representatives of modern research in the historical Jesus reject the stories about Joseph as legendary. While historians accept Joseph was a builder from Nazareth, they regard the accounts of Joseph living in Bethlehem, having prophetic dreams, saving Jesus from Herod, traveling to Egypt, resettling in Nazareth, and traveling to Bethlehem for a census to be relatively late additions to the gospel tradition." Better? Leadwind (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This information belongs on other articles, and is in fact, already included in other article.

Furthermore, there's already a historicity section. One such section is more than enough; this article is about saint Joseph, not a commentary about the gospels. Flash 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
 * Concur with ReaverFlash. --Morenooso (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds is it to be excluded, other than that you don't want it in there? What policy or guideline supports excluding this information? We include information about the infancy narratives? On what grounds is this information about the infancy narratives to be excluded? I'm not asking whether you like this information or are comfortable with it, but rather what the WP guidelines say. Leadwind (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to other editors, I moved this material to the historicity section. ReaverFlash reverted it without discussion. ReaverFlash, please discuss your latest deletion. Morenooso, what's your take? Leadwind (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I did say why I removed that information, as seen by the edit history, although I may have replied in another section. Flash 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
 * By citing WP:CONSENSUS and all my replies, there is no consensus with inclusion which is a combined "take" of two editors. --Morenooso (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus for excluding that information. That's why, according to WP:Consensus, it shouldn't be excluded. Now we're supposed to put aside our differences and work together to come up with something we can all live with. Let's start. Leadwind (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

POV tag, excluded information
Here is the material that keeps getting deleted. Excluding the question of Joseph's historicity is a POV violation; thus the POV tag.

Gerd Theissen, an important representative of contemporary research into the historical Jesus, affirms that Jesus was the son of Joseph.[29]

According to the controversial theologian John Shelby Spong, the figure of Jesus is apparently a literary invention.[5] In Mark, Jesus is “Mary’s son,” and Joseph isn’t mentioned.[5] Joseph appears in later gospels, but there he matches the Old Testament Joseph so closely that he seems to be a fabrication.[5] The scholars of the Jesus Seminar concluded that Joseph may have been Jesus' father, or it might have been someone unknown man.[30]

Let's address this information in the article, one way or another. Leadwind (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree again. His theories belong in his article. Non-support for inclusion. --Morenooso (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is fine, but please cite WP policy. Spong satisfies the first criterion of notability as given in the fringe-theory guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of guidelines and policy articles have been cited. WP:CONSENSUS is a key one in how articles are editted. You have no consensus for inclusion. --Morenooso (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't Spong. In good faith I added extra citations, and they disagreed with Spong. But the whole historicity section, every sentence of which was cited, and which cited three different sources, was reverted. Leadwind (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the historicity section is still in the article. It is understandable that a historicity section on Joseph is included. However, there is no reason to include a historicity section on the infancy narratives. The article is about Joseph, not the Gospels nor the infancy narratives. Flash 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

This page has a POV tag because it has excluded historical context. The page should tell the reader not only who Saint Joseph was in the tradition of the Church but also what historians can tell us about Joseph. Here's what historians can tell us about Joseph: He was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee, living some two thousand years ago. At that time, Galilee was a backwater exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem. Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village, excluded from the nearby wealthy Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone. He was married to Mary and was the father of the famous Jesus. He also fathered four other sons (James, Judas, Joses/Joseph, and Simon) and some daughters. Unlike Mary and James, Joseph played no role in Jesus' ministry or in the Christian church in Jerusalem. Scholars offer various explanations for why Mark refers to Jesus as Mary's son rather than as Joseph's, such as that Joseph had died or that Jesus was illegitimate. Most historians consider Joseph to be Jesus' biological father, though some contend that Mary may have been seduced or raped by another man. In any event, in Joseph's culture a son's legitimacy was defined by the father's acceptance of the boy, not by biological paternity.

It's only fair that we give the historical account of who Joseph was. Leadwind (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So I guess I'll go ahead an put something like this in the article. You two probably don't want to see it there, but you apparently can't think of a good reason to exclude it. If you'd like to improve this content, speak up now. Leadwind (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who is making changes to the article against concensus. I have already stated why it should NOT be included, the onus is on you to provide policy which says that it SHOULD be included. Flash 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

I know that you're happy to outnumber me, but the issue is WP policy. By what policy should this information about Joseph be excluded? We both know that the real reason you want the information left out is because you disagree with it, but WP is about what the experts say, not about what editors like you and me say. Leadwind (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, take a look at WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy and has been cited. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for adding material that exceeds the scope of this article. --Morenooso (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but what policy tells you that this information "exceeds the scope of the article"? Leadwind (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for consensus, here's the definition: "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely." It doesn't mean, "editors get to prevent information they don't like from being added." So let's set aside our differences and agree on a statement agreeable to all. Fair enough? Leadwind (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See, that's the rub. There is no consensus from TWO editors for non-inclusion; or, in other words, consensus is non-inclusion. --Morenooso (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason for me excluding that information is because it belongs on other articles; it is already on other articles. Those scholars you included have opinions on a wide variety of topics, as well as many other scholars. It is unreasonable to include each of those opinions in each and every topic which these scholars discuss.

Historicity hasn't been a part of the article since you added it to the article, and IMO, I don't think it is very important and am perfectly fine with excluding it all together. Addressing the reasons I gave will be much more productive than simply demanding us to cite Wikipedia Policy which forbids your additions. Flash 02:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)


 * But what policy says this information shouldn't go here? If you're not acting in accord with policy, what are you using to base your decisions on? Personal preference? Is it just that you disagree with the information? Leadwind (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is policy. You have no consensus. Get over it. --Morenooso (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus for excluding it, and you can't cite a guideline or policy that the information violates. When editors oppose information and can't cite policy to back them up, it's usually because they have a personal opinion that they're trying to enforce. Maybe you're against this information because you disagree with it? Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last time, two editors agree which is consensus. Therefore, you have none. --Morenooso (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite any policies for making a change against consensus? Flash 03:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)


 * Please see the perfect article discussion and consensus discussion below. Leadwind (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag from the article. New editors have shown up to point out that "consensus" doesn't count as a reason to reject a proposed change to an article, and that historical information should be included. I added in some more basic information. I trust that all of us editors will be able to continue to work productively together now that some of these issues have been clarified. Leadwind (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already said why that information should not be included, and I did not use consensus as an argument.

The reason for me excluding that information is because it belongs on other articles; it is already on other articles. Those scholars you included have opinions on a wide variety of topics, as well as many other scholars. It is unreasonable to include each of those opinions in each and every topic which these scholars discuss. Flash 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

POV tag re-established 2010-05-10 as article is receiving Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
The POV tag was re-established 2010-05-10 as this article is receiving Tendentious editing and Disruptive editing which has spread to another article like Paul of Tarsus. Continued edits like this can be taken to WP:ANEW. --Morenooso (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Always bear in mind that it might be you who is being tendentious and disruptive. Stay cool. PiCo (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, as per WP:NPA says, comment on comment and not contributors. --Morenooso (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the essay, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, was provided in the section above by a neutral editor. It is wikilinked to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Morenooso (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Morenooso, I would love for you to take the trouble to elevate this conflict and get more eyes on it so that I don't have to. I'm pretty sure how experts on WP policy will see it. Leadwind (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with there being a POV tag but for a different reason. My view is that any article that describes historical events or people based almost solely on primary sources from any of the Abrahamic religions (like about 30-40% of the lead in this article) needs a POV tag because those primary sources provide no verifiability for facts whatsoever. It essentially makes the article a POVfork that advocates the unreliable historical narrative/POV of a religious text, an approach that is inconsistent with all sorts of policies. That's one of the reasons I support including the historicity based on reliable academic sources in this article along side the religious narratives. It's important for NPOV compliance in my view. Also, I see no evidence of Tendentious editing and Disruptive editing at Paul of Tarsus from this diff although I've left a message at the talk page over there about other minor concerns.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me just what the reason is for the POV tag? I gather that Leadwind put it there first because material on the historicity of Joseph was being removed; and now, if I follow correctly, Morenooso is putting it there because the same material is put in? And Sean.hoyland  has yet a third interpretation, which I gather is that the bible can't be taken as history? Can we at least decide what we're discussing, folks. PiCo (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point, we need a meta-POV tag to show that there is a POV dispute over the meaning of the POV tag. :)  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

the perfect article
The editors who think that historical analysis doesn't belong in this article are directed to the perfect article. There they will see that the perfect article "acknowledges and has a very nice car explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject." Voila, a WP guideline says that we should address, among other things, historicity in this article, even if that information does appear elsewhere in WP.

The perfect article also "is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." In other words, we should present both the traditional Christian and this historical view.

Since I have a WP guideline on my side, it is incumbent on those who disagree to find a WP policy that the information would violate. Good luck. Before you cite consensus, remember that consensus favors neither side, as neither side has it. Leadwind (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS still applies. You might want to rethink 3RR. --Morenooso (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite the part of WP:Consensus that you think supports you. Leadwind (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And the article, as it is, ALREADY includes historical information anyways. Flash 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)
 * BTW, the perfect article is not policy. It does not have the policy statement as per what was cited. The talkpage discussion becomes all that is needed by stating in the revert, "RV - No consensus, see talkpage. --Morenooso (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

<- It's true that WP:CONSENSUS is policy. It's also true that ""according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." is policy per WP:CONSENSUS. Making non-policy compliant arguments won't help resolve the content dispute here so I suggest the consensus argument is put aside.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. It is used in content disputes. --Morenooso (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you disagree or not isn't relevant. It's policy and editors are obliged to comply with it. The arguments have no validity and there is no merit or policy based reason in repeating them. WP:CCC is quite clear on this matter.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledge that WP:CCC can change but so far it hasn't. In a content dispute, all editors are obliged to respect templates and talkpage discussions. There is a lot more going on here that is present in other sections on this talkpage.--Morenooso (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean. You make me wish that I had read the policy that Morenooso was citing. As it turns out, "it's against consensus" is no reason to reject a proposed change. Morenooso, that's the very reason you've given repeatedly. Now that we see that it's against WP policy to use consensus that way, maybe we can have an actual discussion on the merits of the material. Again, adding historical content is in line with the perfect article guidelines. Unless there's a neutral reason not to add it, we should do so. Morenooso and Flash, now that you can't rely on consensus to keep this information off the page, can we discuss how to add it? Or do we need to deal with other objections first? Remember, the point of consensus is to encourage productive conversation among editors who disagree with each other. Let's do that! Leadwind (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Some comments for what it's worth  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the historicity of Joseph within the scope of this article ? I would say it is without any doubt whatsoever or at least I can't think of any rational justification for excluding it. Personally I find the notion that information about religious figures should be separated into 'the cultural persona' and 'the historical persona' difficult to understand, although it makes sense per WP:SUMMARY when articles become too large (just like there is an article about Albert Einstein in popular culture and Albert Einstein the person).
 * Is there already an article about the historicity of Joseph somewhere ? It seems not as far as I can tell. If there were such an article then this article could simply contain a copy of the lead from that article since that article would be the master and they could be kept synchronized.
 * Should an article be created from scratch about the historicity of Joseph ? I would say not necessarily, not without a good reason. This article is only 32k at the moment. I can see that there are other 'historicity' articles but those can be justified simply on the basis of WP:SUMMARY.
 * Is the material being added policy compliant ? I wouldn't know, I haven't looked in detail but the material must comply WP:V and there seem to be concerns that the material being added meets the WP:REDFLAG criteria. The burden is on the editor adding the material to convince other editors that redflag doesn't apply and that the material is policy compliant. No one should edit war material into an article against the objections of other editors. Tendentious editing without resolving issues on the talk page is disruptive and as it says in WP:BRD 'Revert -wars do not help build consensus'. Also, there's no rush.
 * Looking at the material being added I have concerns that it doesn't comply with NPOV, specifically NPOV. For example, presenting "His genealogies in the Gospels, however, are considered artificial, and the infancy narratives in which he appears are deemed legendary" as a fact is unacceptable. Having said that, statements like "Historians generally agree with the Gospel accounts as far as describing Joseph as a Jewish builder from Nazareth, Mary's husband, and the father of Jesus." and "Historians agree with the Gospel accounts in that Joseph was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee." are equally unacceptable without sourcing. Are there sources available that explicitly support the statements being added to the article i.e. it has to be an RS making these statements rather than wiki editors.
 * As for sourcing, the most prominent and important contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus (Vermes, Sanders, Crossan, Theissen), as well as the vast majority of Jesus Seminar scholars (which includes Funk, Harris, Borg, etc.) and Barth Ehrman concur on both the positive and negative assertions cited here: that Joseph was Jesus' father but the infancy narratives aren't history. These sources basically state these assertions as facts. You have to go to someone rather out there like Spong before you get someone who thinks that Jesus existed but Joseph didn't. We could say, "Contemporary, mainstream historians conclude..." It would be way too narrow to say, "Geza Vermes says." This is stuff that all the mainstream scholars agree on. Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Was he a Jew?
According to Maimonides he was a Gentile! I'm confused... anyone know what the basis of this is? 91.106.178.140 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He was a Jew, since he was from the House of David. The bible traces back his family history. Also, Mary would not have been betrothed to a Gentile. Tarheelz123 (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I searched in vain for the Maimonides reference as well, and have not found much information on the subject. I believe, the Maimonides "half-jew" reference stems from the belief of a Yeshu ben Pandera, as being the historical Jesus.  I think this was developed in the early middle ages by Jewish Scholars, stemming from the first reference to the Roman pagan writer Celsus.  (Hence, Jews got the idea from the Celsus).  I think this article would be a good place to reference the development of the belief, but I think both Christians and Jews are sensitive to this idea and have reason for its suppression.  Chudogg (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it out, Chudogg. The Pandera story deserves mention here. Leadwind (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Spong and the fringe theory policy
Would some of the new, knowledgeable editors hazard a judgment on whether Spong's argument against Jesus having no father counts as a fringe theory unworthy of mention? The discussion is above. Spong points out that the first two sources (Mark and the body of Matthew) name Jesus only "son of Mary" or "son of the builder." Then when Joseph first appears (the infancy narrative at the front of Matthew), he is suspiciously similar to the beloved Joseph of Genesis. Spong is generally farther out there than Erhman, Sanders, or me, but he seems to be a notable voice among modern writers. Or is he fringe? Leadwind (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to go to Spong for the thought that the figure of Joseph in the gospels is essentially invented. Though, for those who don't believe in the Incarnation, obviously someone was Jesus' father. I don't know who to suggest for an earlier ref though. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the idea that Joseph was invented is in play, then it deserves mention here, and Spong would be an able spokesman for the idea. When I say Jesus "didn't have a father," I mean "no father accepted him as his son." In Jesus' culture, everyone had a biological male parent, but fatherhood was a social role that a man voluntarily accepted (or not). Leadwind (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Spong is very recent, not really an academic, and has a whole range of controversial ideas on all sorts of things. I'm sure the more mainstream "historicists" can provide better refs. It seems to me that if you discard the Joseph of the gospels you are just left with absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It really is very strange that the earliest gospel traditions fail to give Jesus any father at all. The epistles of Paul (some of them) are earlier than Mark - what does Paul say? PiCo (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul never mentions Mary, refers to her as "a woman" and not "a virgin," and doesn't mention Joseph. The earliest mention of Joseph in Matthew's ahistorical infancy narrative, which makes Jesus' father out to be a "new Joseph," just as that gospel makes Jesus out to be a "new Moses." In any event, my question is about policy. Is there any policy or guideline against including Spong's POV as a notable (if minority) POV? Leadwind (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

historical Joseph: Galilee and Nazareth
Johnbod removed a munch of information about Galilee and Nazareth. I restored it and added some refs. Are there any refs that say that Galilee was something other than a backwater and that Nazareth was anything other than a one-horse town? Leadwind (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article
Information was recently added which I believe falls outside the scope of the article:

His genealogies in the Gospels and the infancy narratives in which he appears, however, are credited with little if any historical value.

Not only is this information in other articles, and even the sources cited only address Joseph indirectly. Furthermore, there are dissenting opinions. I propose removing the information. Flash 21:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for taking this to talk. It's appreciated. Way better than just reverting a fellow editor's hard work. Do you think you would also be able to cite policy or guidelines to back up your opinion? The perfect article guidelines say to address the topic from every notable point of view, and the WP:V guidelines say that we should use solid reliable sources, so that's why I included this information. But if it violates a policy or guidelines, we should definitely hear about that. Thanks for your constructive editing. Leadwind (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you mention dissenting opinions. The way WP works is not that we exclude information if there's dissent but rather that we include the dissent as well. If you have a reliable source that disagrees with Funk, Vermes, Theissen, and Sanders, then by all means let's get that information into the article, too! Thanks again. Leadwind (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The cited references don't seem to take me anywhere. What is the actual issue here?  That some of the content added is irrelevant to the article?  Cheers, -- Alvincura (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any policy on relevancy.

The issue is that the sources mainly talk about either the geneaologies, or the nativity narratives, but they do not address the issue of Saint Joseph directly. The information added is already included in other articles, subjects that are directly addressed, instead of indirectly mentioned. Flash 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)


 * How is the fact that the information is included in other articles an argument against including it here? Wikipedia is full of related articles that contain duplicated information. It could hardly be otherwise.
 * The problem I see is that the refs are not specific enough. Merely settiing out a range of pages does not comply with WP:CITEHOW, which requires a specific page number or numbers so the material being referenced can be found easily, especially with statements likely to be challenged, as these appear to be. Nobody wants to have to read 30 pages to find one ref, nor should they have to. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, all notable views concerning Joseph need to be in this article. Historicity and other historical aspects need to be covered. That said, if someone (not saying this is the case) is drawing their own conclusions, or combining sources or having a novel synthesis, we need to remember to avoid original research. Tracking down sources that clearly discuss Joseph in the context of history shouldn't be hard, and need to be in this article (if that already hasn't happened. Leadwind had a stellar history of good editing, but again I haven't looked into the specifics of this disputed content). -Andrew c [talk] 02:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

<-If there is something about the scope of this article that would result in a policy based reason to exclude the historicity information (and I don't think there is) then I suggest the scope is changed so that it can be included. I can't think of any reason to not present the information in this article. It's where the reader would expect it to be isn't it ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like almost all this page, this is a rather lame discussion. There are shelves of scholarly works that are not only prepared to make what they can of the few biblical details, but address issues arising from them not mentioned here - was Joseph in fact married to Mary? The Orthodox don't seem to think so, hence "Joseph the Betrothed" - check the Septuagint text. I have added a section adapted from one I put in Historical Jesus on "tekton", but more like this is needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, what is your conclusion then on the issue, I'm curious? -- Alvincura (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The infancy narratives (the apocryphal ones I mean) have been pretty much dismissed by everyone since Late Antiquity, with the possible exception of the odd detail - I'm not an expert. Its fair to say that the gospel infancy sections are regarded as elaborations by most not committed to the veracity of Scripture - again we are not using the links to existing other articles. We have a long and I think good article on Genealogy of Jesus which isn't even linked here.  In fact the issue is extremely complicated. On the whole I'd just say that & link there. It is evident there are plenty of biblical scholars still prepared to take them seriously, as I suppose at least what the family thought the genealogy was.  Given the importance still attached to knowing lines of descent in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and the very large number of people who may well have been descended from the Davidic line (another link missing here) after many centuries, the claim is perhaps not inherently implausible, at least as what was believed by the family. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I agree that more is needed. This is a rich topic and deserves a thorough treatment. Leadwind (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone still reading this? Anyway, if we're talking scope of the article, the Mercer Bible Dictionary has a neat little discussion of Joseph arranged by gospels, pointing out the differences of each and their intentions. (You'll have to scroll upwards, as I didn't copy/paste the exact page). It looks like it might make a good structural skeleton for at least part of the article, as well as providing information. Out of curiosity, I can't see any similarity between the NT Joseph and the OT one - what does Spong actually say? PiCo (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work; ok this should. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The main similarity is the period in Egypt, and perhaps also the number of dreams or visions in the stories, though in the OT it is not Joseph who has them. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Egypt, dreams, and the name of his father (Jacob). Leadwind (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits to lead regarding genealogy
I have removed these newly added bits from the lead:
 *  although Luke's genealogy has traditionally been assumed to be Mary's.
 *  while others have argued that the genealogies and the infancy narratives  are historically accurate.

Pertaining to the first bulleted point above, the Catholic Church clearly is one source representing tradition, especially pre-reformation tradition. Catholic encyclopedia says "It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy  of the Blessed Virgin." while the above cited source says "Since at least the time of Annius of Viterbo in A.D. 1940 it has been traditional to assume that Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph" Which one is it? Does the Catholic Church/encyclopedia know more about Church tradition, or does the Dictionary of Jesus...? Because of the source conflict, I don't think we should favor one over the other, and therefore I don't think we should mention this at all in the lead. It is too controversial, and not a clear basic fact related to the topic (which is Saint Joseph after all).

Furthermore, dealing with the second bulleted point above, the cited Dictionary goes on to say "these genealogies serve primarily theological and christological purposes and only secondarily historical ones. Our authors were not concerned to present detailed or exhaustive lists of Jesus' actual ancestors, but only to highlight some aspects of his heritage which would best illuminate for their respective audiences Jesus' significance and nature." Because of this conclusion, I believe it is at beat misleading, if not simply inaccurate to represent this source as saying "the genealogies of Jesus are historically accurate." Finally, relating to the historicity of the infancy narratives, I don't believe their is a proper implementation of weight. I don't believe Roberts, Waters, and Bock are on the same level as Funk, Vermes, Sanders, and Theissen. We are doing a disservice to our readers by making all views seem equal. NPOV does not say to present all views with parity, as equals, if there is clearly a majority/minority separation. It is my understanding, that at least historians clearly find little historical accuracy in the infancy narratives. This may not be the same in other fields (such as apologetics), so at least we need to add some weight considerations, and some qualifies so we are presenting exactly who views what. Therefore, I think we should explore these views in more detail in the specific "Historical_Joseph" section, and then consider whether it is appropriate or not to alter the lead, and then discuss how we should make those changes. Anyway, hope this isn't too much. But I want to make my reasoning behind my partial revert clear, and be open to further discussion, and collaboration. -Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The source cited for genealogies is a tertiary source, and summarizes the attempts to reconcile the differences in two genealogies, and hence, treat them as historical. It lists some explanations for the divergence such as 1) Luke traces through Mary and 2)Royal and legal lineage vs. physical descendants.


 * I admit that this is not the best source to cite, but there are others available.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I think it is disservice to readers to present only one point of view when there are multiple sources contradicting it. Plus, when you assert that one viewpoint is the clear majority and that some scholars are not in the same "level" as others, and should be given more or less weight, reliable sources must be given. Flash 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)


 * Please see my views on the same trend on Talk:Resurrection_of_Jesus. WP:UYB is clearly getting violated here as well as there. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * History, please cite the part of WP:UYB that we're violating on this page. Leadwind (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew, let's put the material in the historical Joseph section. Since the cited scholars are less prominent than the scholars who say that the infancy narratives and genealogies are artificial, their coverage in this article should likewise be less prominent. Leadwind (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Two parts of WP:UYB, left part and right part. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * History, that was a cute reply! But WP:UYB isn't about excluding information from pages. You might find that I'm pretty reasonable as far as following policies and guidelines is concerned. But if you can't cite policy or guidelines to support excluding information, then WP:TPA says to explore a topic from every angle. Since we apparently disagree about history, it's important that we stick to WP guidelines and policies so that we can nevertheless edit productively together. Leadwind (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, Regardless of your assessment of the cuteness of my reply, I can not agree with your self assessment of your own reasonableness in following Wikipedia policies, either on this page or elsewhere. I must now point you to WP:OYE (WP: open your eyes). If you follow that policy you will observe that you are sailing against the wind my friend. When I went to issue you a WP:Battleground warning on your talk page regarding Resurrection of Jesus, I noticed that your talk page has several previous warnings about your actions. And having looked over the issues, I must agree with the previous editors who issued the warnings to you. Moreover, on this very talk page, if you follow WP:OYE and look further up you will see dissatisfaction with your edits. I think you must heed the WP:Battleground warning issued to you and calm your edits. History2007 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind's edits
Leadwind has reverted my attempts to make the "historical Joseph" section less misleading, especially the part that now again goes:"Historians agree with the Gospel accounts in that Joseph was a Jewish builder from Nazareth in Galilee. Two thousand years ago, Galilee was a backwater[44] exploited by Romans and far from the Holy City of Jerusalem.[5]  Nazareth itself was a tiny, poor village,[45]  excluded from the prosperity of the nearby Hellenic city of Sepphoris. Joseph was a builder, working in wood and stone.[15]". I'll point out at the start that if you're going to start your section "Historians agree ..." you'd better be representing a solid consensus. In fact none of these statements really do. There is certainly no agreement that "builder" is the best term to describe his work; the various options for what "tekton" might mean are now discussed far more fully in the section I had added higher up; there is in fact not the slightest evidence that Joseph worked stone at all, though he may have done. Early Christian tradition is solid that wood was Jesus' material, though he may have been a coppersmith for all we know, without contradicting the Gospels at all. That Nazareth was "excluded from the prosperity of the nearby Hellenic city of Sepphoris" would be disputed by many who speculate that the villagers, and especially craftsmen, may have done very well from the city; again this is discussed above. "tiny" - is there actually any evidence at all as to its population, I don't think so. It just isn't mentioned often in the few other sources we have. What does "tiny" mean anyway - it's a hopeless word to use across vast distances of time and culture. "far from the Holy City of Jerusalem" - why not just say about 65 miles, which is not very far if you're from Texas, I dare say; at least that's oner thing we actually know. "exploited by Romans" - really? More than the rest of the Mediterranean world? What does this mean? The rest of the section is nearly as bad, and hardly referenced. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem to me that the Historical Joseph section is repeating the subject-matter of earlier sections. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I received a message about this page after I commented on LeadWind on Talk:Resurrection_of_Jesus. I think there is the same trend here. That needs to stop, or the readers will stop reading. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Johnbod, if you can find reliable sources that contradict what's in my reliable sources, then let's put both view in there. Leadwind (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the sources in the fuller section already above, you will see the problems with yours. It's not a case of "both views", but you are over-reliant on popular works (by academics certainly) than oversimplify and overelaborate what very little information we have from near the period. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PiCo, in fact, it's the earlier section on who Joseph was that's repeating what's in the historical joseph section. The historical joseph section was added first, and that's where modern understandings of what a tekton was should go.
 * No, why? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * History, if you want us to stop putting so much historical content into religion pages, just find the policy or guideline that says we should stop. Leadwind (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I added more refs and removed material I couldn't find references for. If there's any dispute over whether Nazareth was Nowheresville or that the Galileans were exploited by Roman occupation, let's just find RSs that say it was a big, prosperous town. In my understanding, there's actual archeological evidence now that Nazareth was home to about 50 families that lived in caves, which were modified internally and built out externally. Leadwind (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are just the caves, or some of them, which obviously have survived a massive Byzantine basilica & plenty of other later buildings being built on the site rather better than houses on flatter sites. See here for the difficulties - this could usefully be cited.  No one is disputing it was a small village, but many scholars have long speculated that the rebuilding of Sepphoris nearby may have given it, and especially its "tektons", something of a boom period. This detailed discussion does not support that Nazareth was "cut off" from Sepphoris, rather it describes it as "oriented towards Sepphoris".  Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * John, given that you expressed your dissatisfaction with the reversal of your edits and seem to have further issues, could you please provide the edits that you think were unjustly reverted? There are too many intermediate edits for those to be easily observed. The best scenario would be if you could please provide your proposed version of what you would like to see in the article just below here and we can have a discussion of which version will be in the best interest of the readers at large, now that the article is being cleaned up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comments below. I have also added to the second part of the "tekton" section, which I hope explains more why this is relevant. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Josephology
Amazon.com is now selling Tshirts (I kid you not) that promote Josephology as a term. It also sells books on it, so the article should probably say more on that since until 3 days ago, it did not even include the term. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Article quality and structure
I had not even seen this article until a few days ago, but now that I have looked at it, I think it is pretty low quality and disorganized. And recently it seems to have been the subject of many patched edits and half finished facelifts - reminds me of some people you see walking down the street in Beverly Hills who have had 4 facelifts too many.

But, this article may still be fixed, and in the process I may learn about the topic. I would like to open a discussion on improving this article. To begin with, the order of the sections seems haphazard:


 * In the canonical Gospels
 * As a tekton
 * In apocryphal anecdotes
 * In art
 * Sainthood
 * Feast days in Christian churches
 * Institutions and places named after Joseph
 * Modern literature
 * Historical Joseph

I think if the secondary material such as church names is better organized, we can begin to see the rest better.

As a start, let us not touch the art section for now, and leave that to the end. But it does seem out of place in the order of sections. But we can move that after all other issues have been discussed.

The feast days section takes up space with a chant! The first paragraph is very terse and needs to be opended up. But overall the material is ok.

The Institutions and places named after Joseph needs 2 new pages, one like List of places named after St. Thérèse of Lisieux and another like St. Michael's Church. There is no point in taking up space with that info in this page and a main will be good. And there is also Saint Joseph (disambiguation) which overlaps with places - a real mess overall.

The section on Modern literature just has 3 bullet points and refers to a few novels. I think that should move to the very end and not have a description. Why just select these 3 novels? It did not teach me much to read that section. And it should probably move to the very end.

The next item is the section on Sainthood. It overlaps with churches and feasts. So that needs to be cleaned up. I am not sure how that section was organized, but seems patch like.

I was surprised to see a section called "as a tekton". I had never heard the term before and having it in the section title seemed confusing. Section titles should be clear. And I do not understand what that section is trying to teach me anyway. Jumps from a definition of tekton to a discussion of how far Nazareth was from somewhere else. Is that section supposed to mean "his profession" and discuss carpenter vs builder etc. Just seems like a confused selection of sentences, each surviving there by the virtue of having a reference. But they do not fit together.

After all of these issues have been cleaned up, we can discuss the rest. But first I will appreciate comments on Sainthood and tekton sections, because I think the church names and place names are easy to fix and I will do that in a few days. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try to work it in wherever the first time the article mentions he is dead. Otherwise, if you have a citation too, you could build a "Later life and death" section. moreno oso (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the article explains, nothing on this is said in the gospels. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of this, and have rearranged the "saint/patronage/feast" parts into one section, trimming slightly. Some of this could go off to a new page, or be added to an existing one, as you suggest - or just a footnote, which is where I have put the US Methodist bodies. There is also still a certain amount of repetition - eg Pius IX is in twice.  I don't much agree re the sections I mostly wrote. "Tecton" is already carefully explained in the lead; look on the bright side - at least you have now learned something!  Nor do I agree at all that the section does not develop logically.  Really I think this and the "Historical Joseph" section should be combined and expanded (for example with the population of Narareth, as per recent talk).  But this is difficult while Leadwind clings to his precise wording, with which I have considerable problems, as explained above. I think it is important to avoid loose talk using "carpenter" or "builder", without context, and restricting the references to one group.  I'd also add the art section is the only one to really touch on the changes in the churches' view of Joseph over the centuries.  The results of this are mentioned, but not explained, in the saint section. With history's changes & mine, I think the article is already much more focused. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The EO position, according to which he was, as I understand it, NOT married to Mary, still needs coverage. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume EO means EastOrtodox, so if you know that please add it. I think your re-arrangements of my edits were fine, but think that Murillo on top is too small and dark - needs another. The patronages and churches needs both trim and development, e.g. San Giuseppe or São José as names of places and churches need to be worked on. However, the article itself is still way, way below the quality level of elsewhere in the wiki-world, e.g. Wiki Italian version which is much better developed and can act as a good source for new material. I had not even used that as a source of ideas yet - but will do later.

Now, there are just 3 sections that have not been discussed here, the Biblical, Apocryphal and Historical. I do not see why the historical item is out by itself in an island. And it has a POV tag which needs to be addressed and cleaned up. Also I still do see why Tecton is a section by itself either. Is that section trying to describe the socio-economic structure of Nazareth? The whole flow between the sections seems to get stuck. The Italian version calls that section "profession" and has material.

Finally, let us not assume that the intro is perfect - far from it. It is riddled with Bible-refs that make it hard to read and intros usually have less refs and the refs are fully developed in the text. The intro should summarize and motivate. But that can wait until the rest of the article has been brought up to better quality standards. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the tekton & historical sections should be merged somehow - "Working life" perhaps - the usual biographical "Career" hardly fits; personally I'm happy with the current title, and "tekton", as in fact the only solid crumb of evidence we have about Joseph, should be treated as key, whether or not people are familiar with the term. They are supposed to read here to extend their knowledge after all. After all he is the patron saint of workers. I prefer to avoid "historical" in the section title - too POV, & there is really little "history" to give.  I've no attachment to the Murillo, & don't have ready refs for the EO position, but they  should be easy to find. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no attachment to Murillo? I am shocked - just kidding. But I think Commons has some nice images. As for "Working life" as a title that is fine with me, and certainly the word "tekton" must be mentioned and discussed therein. But the next issue should really be the Biblical section which is now "pre-preemptively" handled in the intro. So there is NOT ONE bible reference in the Biblical section, and they are all in the intro - which is pretty long and not an intro - but a semi-article in itself. And the Bible-refs there are small and hard to read, they need to be easier to see and in the Biblical section. Finally, as a favor to everyone's diet, I will not bring up Saint Joseph's Table yet, although I was surprised to run across it. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yum yum! Yes, the second part of the lead para 2, & the bible refs, should be moved down to the biblical section. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the canonical gospels" edited to (a) put material in chronological order; (b) add a table to make comparisons between gospels easier; (c) moved "Life and work" section up; (d) created new subsections for the three of them. Aim is to improve organisation and increase ease of reference. PiCo (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the table was very helpful. Did St. Joseph's table above give you the idea? Just kidding. But most harmony tables have the Matthew, Luke, Mark, John column structure and the rest of Wikipedia e.g. Parables of Jesus uses those columns. I am not sure if Paul is even needed there, given that it is an empty column and is in the text. I any case, these edits and revisions are helping me learn the topic. History2007 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad you like it. Feel free to change it. Unfortunatelry to understan dthingsy the table is probably OR, since it doesn't come from a source in that form - but let's not mention that...PiCo (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the table is a summary of Biblerefs it will not be OR. But now that I look at it, it may give rise to complaints of OR later. The only way I see to avoid that is to do what was done in Miracles of Jesus which is a table with Biblerefs but no words. I can try to change that later. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

John: Thanks for correcting teh Carravaggio title. I even found a dream one by itself that is a key event rather than rest. Now, should teh altarpiece be before or after Joachim? It is a nice piece, but is there any basis for which comes first?I have no idea. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (1). Created a new subsection dealing with the traditional and doctrinal attempts to explain Jesus' brothers/Mary's virginity via Joseph's supposed first wife. (2) Moved some material about historicity of the birth narratives up to the end of the lead, where it now duplicates material already there - that final para of the lead needs to be harmonised. (3) The section on the Aprocrypha and Joseph needs work - many many apocryphal Gospels mention Joseph (follow the link to Gospel of James). And, quite incidentally, reduced the article by over 2000 bytes, just by careful editing. PiCo (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorg of sections
I think Pico's June 16 reorg of Sainthood is pretty logical in that Sainthood should absorb feasts, places and devotions. I suggest we just leave it that way. History2007 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Top 10 stories / apocrypha
Pico, I must say I have been laughing since I read the stories from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas about Jesus striking the parents blind at the PTA meeting in Nazareth. That was funny information. But I think these "top 10 stories from the 3rd century" are probably getting too much space in the article and need to be summarized - although the details just go to make them laughable enough to discredit them. On that note, there is a rumor that just as there are accounts in John and Paul, there are also accounts in the hidden Gospels of George and Ringo that makes the Fab4 package complete. The new documents will soon be discovered in sealed earthenware jar in a park in North London. And those Gospels can talk about young Jesus playing soccer in Nazareth. In any case, I think we need to cut back on apocrypha, although I did get a laugh out of reading it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the space now given is fine. We haven't quite nailed the EO position on the relationship between Mary & Joseph though. Have there been cuts here? Also I think the feast day section should be before the "places named after" one. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I moved that section and fixed images so less chance of overlap on short screens. Can we freeze that issue for now? Yet I think the apocrypha is still too long. On that let us hear from others, then maybe we achieve some stability, except the OR issue for the table - which can be fixed by using Biblerefs instead of words. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)